Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses
Rule 110 PROSECUTION of Offenses
1. General Rule: MTC and RTC courts gain jurisdiction over the offense upon the filing
of complaint by a complainant or an information by the prosecuting officer
à Court gains jurisdiction over the person of the accused upon arrest or surrender;
such jurisdiction once gained cannot be lost even if accused escapes (Gimenez vs.
Nazareno)
à Jurisdiction of the court over the offense is determined at the time of the institution
of the action and is retained even if the penalty for the offense is later lowered or
raised (People vs. Lagon)
Complaint Information
May be filed either with the court or in the Filed with the court
fiscal’s office generally to commence the
preliminary investigation of the charges made
4. Cases where civil courts of equal rank are vested with concurrent jurisdiction:
a. In RTC:
à By filing a complaint with the appropriate officer for the purpose of conducting
requisite preliminary investigation therein.
à By filing the complaint or information directly with said courts, or a complaint with
the fiscal’s office
à In all 3 above cases, such institution shall interrupt the period of prescription of the
offense charged (Rule 110, §1)
[i.e. (1) violation of traffic laws; (2) violation of rental laws; (3) violation of
municipal or city ordinances; and (4) criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed
6 months or fine of P1000 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties and civil
liabilities]
à The complaint or information shall be filed directly in court without need of a prior
preliminary examination or preliminary investigation.
à Zaldivia vs. Reyes – since a criminal case covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure
shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court, then the running of the
prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and
not on any date before that.
à Reodica vs. CA – [clarifies Zaldivia above] Under Art. 91 of the RPC, the period of
prescription shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information. It does
not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or
investigation only, or for an action on the merits. Thus, the filing of the complaint
even with the fiscal’s office should suspend the running of the Statute of Limitations.
The ruling in Zaldivia is not applicable to all cases subject to the Rules on Summary
Procedure, since that particular case involved a violation of an ordinance. Therefore,
the applicable law therein was not Art. 91 of the RPC, but Act No. 3326 (“An Act to
Establish Periods of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts and Municipal
Ordinances and to Provide when Prescription Shall Begin to Run”), §2 of which
provides that period of prescription is suspended only when judicial proceedings are
instituted against the guilty party.
à Information may be amended as to the name of the accused, but such amendment
cannot be questioned for the first time on appeal (People vs. Guevarra)
à Error of name of the offended party: if material to the case, it necessarily affects
the identification of the act charged. Conviction for robbery cannot be sustained if
there is a variance between the allegation and the proof as to the ownership of the
property stolen.
à If facts do not completely allege all the elements of the crime charged, the info may
be quashed; however, the prosecution is allowed to amend the info to include the
necessary facts (People vs. Purisima)
à Information need only allege facts, not include all the evidence which may be used
to prove such facts (Balitaan vs. CFI)
à A significant discrepancy in the time alleged cannot be sustained since such would
allow the prosecution to prove an offense distantly removed from the alleged date,
thus substantially impairing the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges
against him (People vs. Reyes)
à Conviction may be had even if it appears that the crime was committed not at the
place alleged, provided that the place of actual commission was within the court’s
jurisdiction and accused was not surprised by the variance between the proof and the
information
Amendment
Substitution
Involves either formal or substantial changes Necessarily involves a substantial change
Without leave of court if before plea Needs leave of court as original information
has to be dismissed
Where only as to form, there is no need for Another preliminary investigation is entailed
another preliminary investigation and retaking and accused has to plead anew
of plea of accused
Refers to the same offense charged or which Requires or presupposes that new info
necessarily includes or is necessarily included involves a different offense which does not
in original charges, hence, substantial include or is not included in the original
amendments to info after plea taken cannot charge, hence, accused cannot claim double
be made over objections of accused for if jeopardy
original info is withdrawn, accused could
invoke double jeopardy
1. Felonies in Art. 2, RPC (cognizable by proper court in which charge is first filed)
2. Continuing offenses
3. Piracy which is triable anywhere
4. Libel (residence; or where first published)
5. In exceptional cases, to ensure fair trial and impartial inquiry
à Offended party, even if minor, has right to initiate the prosecution of the case
independently of parents, grandparents or guardian, unless she is
incompetent/incapable on grounds other than minority.
à If offended party who is a minor fails to file the complaint, her parents,
grandparents or guardian may do so.
à If complexed with a public crime, the provincial fiscal may sign the complaint on his
own
à The offended party may intervene in the prosecution of the criminal case because of
her interest in it (Banal vs. Tadeo)
14. Procedure
1. Complaint filed in MTC or info filed in RTC where an essential ingredient of the crime took
place (territorial jurisdiction)
1. Amendment as a matter of right before plea
2. Amendment upon discretion of the court after plea
d. After plea and before judgment, if it appears there was a mistake in charging
proper offense, court shall dismiss original info upon the filing of a corrected one,
provided that the accused will not be placed in double jeopardy (substitution)
15. Remedies
a. Motion to quash
à May be filed after arraignment but before plea on the grounds provided by the rules
(generally, a flaw in the info)
à If duplicity of offense charged is not raised in trial through a motion to quash info,
the right to question it is waived (People vs. Ocapan)
b. Motion to dismiss
à May be filed after plea but before judgment on most of grounds for motion to quash
à Defined as the joinder of separate and distinct offenses in one and the same
information/complaint
à Article 32 is a valid cause of a civil action for damages against public officers who
impair the Constitutional rights of citizens (Aberca vs. Ver)
à Even if the private prosecutor participates in the prosecution, if he is not given the
chance to prove damages, the offended party is not barred from filing a separate civil
action
1. Waiver
2. Reservation of right to institute separate action
3. Institution of civil action prior to criminal action
à NOTE: Under SC Circular 57-97, all criminal actions for violations of BP Blg. 22 shall
be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no reservation to
file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
à San Ildefonso Lines vs. CA – past pronouncements of the SC that the requirement in
Rule 111 that a reservation be made prior to the institution of an independent civil
action is an “unauthorized amendment” to substantive law is now no longer
controlling. Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the
reservation requirement is to avoid multiplicity of suits, to prevent delays, to clear
congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court, and in short, the attainment
of justice with the least expense and vexation to parties-litigants.
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action
2. The resolution of such issue will determine whether the criminal action will proceed or
not
1. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action: and
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed
à Petition for suspension of criminal action is to be filed at any time before prosecution
rests.
5. Remedies
6. Extinction of penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which
the civil might arise did not exist.
à Final judgment in civil absolving defendant from civil liability not a bar to criminal
action
7. Filing fees:
2. GENERAL RULE: The fiscal conducts the preliminary investigation before filing an
information with the RTC, EXCEPT where the accused is lawfully arrested without a
warrant and an inquest is conducted.
à Waived by failure to invoke the right prior to or at least at the time of the plea
5. Procedure
(c) MTC or MCTC judge, excluding MTC judge of Metro Manila or chartered cities
à i.e., if fiscal finds reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed
and accused is probably guilty thereof
à If the investigating officer is an MTC judge, and he finds that probable cause exists
and that there is a need to place the accused under custody, then he may issue a
warrant of arrest
à Flores vs. Sumaling – What differentiates the present rule from the previous one is
that while before, it was mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a warrant for
the arrest of the accused if he found probable cause, the rule now is that the
investigating judge’s power to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances in
which there is a necessity for placing him in custody “in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice.” It is therefore error for the investigating judge to order the issuance of a
warrant of arrest solely on his finding of probable cause, without making any finding of
a necessity to place the accused in immediate custody to prevent a frustration of
justice.
1. Investigating officer forwards records to the city fiscal or chief state prosecutor
1. City fiscal or state prosecutor either dismisses the complaint or files the information in
court
(c) Fiscal either dismisses the complaint and orders the immediate release of the
accused, OR prepares and files an information
à While fiscal has quasi-judicial discretion whether or not to file an information, once
it is filed with the court, the court acquires jurisdiction giving it discretion over the
disposition of the case and the Sec. of Justice should refrain from entertaining
petitions for review or appeals from the decision of fiscal (Crespo vs. Mogul; Velasquez
vs. Undersecretary of Justice)
6. Remedies
à Must be with assistance of counsel and after waiving Art. 125, RPC
à Filed within 5 days after accused learns an information against him has been filed
without a preliminary investigation
à Filed upon denial of his motion for a preliminary investigation, on the ground that
his rights to due process of law were violated, ousting the court of jurisdiction
à Ordinarily, injunction will not lie but may be granted in certain cases
1. When strong-arm tactics are used for vindictive purposes (Salonga vs. Cruz-Pano)
2. When the accused is deprived of his rights
3. When the statute on which the charge is based is null and void
4. When it will aid the administration of justice (Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan)
5. When multiplicity of suits will be avoided (Guingona vs. City Fiscal)
1. Arrest – taking a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for
the commission of some offense, made by an actual restraint of the person or by his
submission to custody
à Not all persons detained are arrested; only those detained to answer for an offense.
à “Invitations” are not arrests and are usually not unconstitutional, but in some cases
may be taken as commands (Babst vs. NBI); however, the practice of issuing an
“invitation” to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed is considered as placing him under “custodial
investigation.” (RA 7438)
à Warrants of arrest remain valid until arrest is effected, or the warrant is lifted
b. When an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has
personal knowledge that the person to be arrested committed it
à Warrantless arrest anytime for a continuing offense like rebellion, subversion (Umil
vs. Ramos)
à The continuing crime, not the crime finally charged, needs only be the cause of the
arrest (Umil vs. Ramos)
c. When person to be arrested is an escaped detainee (either serving sentence or with
case pending)
4. Procedure
à In determining probable cause, the judge may rely on findings by responsible officer
(Lim vs. Felix)
iv. If peace officer is unable to serve warrant 10 days after issuance, he must file a
report and explanation with judge within 10 days
1. Person is arrested
1. Person arrested may waive right to Art. 125, RPC and ask for preliminary investigation or
inquest
à Fiscal is not judicial authority contemplated under Art. 125 (Sayo vs. Chief of Police)
1. Probable cause
2. Signed by judge
3. Specifically naming or particularly and sufficiently describing person to be arrested
à John Doe warrants are void for being general warrants (Pangandaman vs. Cesar)
6. Remedies
à Filed with any court, to effect immediate release of the person detained
à Filed when a person is being illegally detained (without judicial process), or was
illegally arrested (void warrant or unlawful warrantless arrest, or warrantless arrest
beyond period with no information filed)
à If an arrest is improper, the remedy is a motion for quashal of the warrant of arrest
and/or a motion to quash the information, not habeas corpus (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
à Habeas corpus is no longer available after an information has been filed, the
information being the judicial process required by law (Ilagan vs. Enrile)
à Filed with court which issued the warrant of arrest when the warrant of arrest is
fatally flawed
à Filed with court when information against the person arrested has been filed
à Must be made in a “special appearance” before the court questioning only its lack of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused
à Any irregularity in the arrest is cured when the petitioner submits himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, e.g., by filing for bail (Bagcal vs. Villaraza)
7. V.V. Mendoza, “Rights to Counsel in Custodial Investigation”
1. Bail – security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him
or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under
the following conditions:
1. Undertaking effective upon approval and remains in force at all stages until promulgation
of judgment, unless sooner cancelled
2. Accused shall appear before court when required
3. Failure to appear despite notice to him or the bondsman will waive his right to be present
and trial shall proceed in absentia
4. Bondsman shall surrender accused for execution of judgment
à Bail applies to all persons detained, not just to those charged with the offense
(Herras vs. Teehankee)
à Court has power to prohibit person out on bail from leaving the country (Manotoc,
Jr. vs. CA)
à Bail implies delivery of the accused to the sureties who, though not holding him
prisoner, may seize him and imprison him until they can deliver him to court (US vs.
Bonoan)
2. General Rule: All persons are entitled to bail as a matter of right, except those
charged with capital offenses.
à Right to bail traditionally unavailable to military personnel facing court martial, who
are not in the same class as civilians (Comendador vs. de Villa)
à Bail should be available regardless of other circumstances or the merits of the case,
if the health or the life of the detainee is in danger (Dela Rama vs. People’s Court)
4. When bail is discretionary (application filed with court where case is pending)
5. Procedure
(1) Where information against him was filed or where case is pending
(2) Absent (1), in another branch of the same court within the province or city where
he is held
(3) If arrested in another province, city or municipality, file with the RTC
à Evidence must be strong that the accused is guilty of the capital offense charged, not
just of any offense (Bernardez vs. Valera)
6. Bail bond – an obligation under seal given by accused with one or more sureties
and made payable to proper officer with the condition to be void upon performance by
the accused of such acts as he may legally be required to perform
7. Recognizance
1. Obligation of record entered into before some court of magistrate duly authorized to take
it, with the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in criminal cases
being the appearance of the accused for trial
2. Does not require signature of accused for trial
3. Does not require signature of accused to be valid
8. Prosecution witnesses may be required to post bail to ensure their appearance at
the trial, except:
9. When bail required under RA 6036 (violation of ordinance, light felony, criminal
offense – not higher that 6 month imprisonment and/or P2000 fine, or both)
1. a. Caught in flagrante
2. Confessed to commission of offense unless repudiated (force and intimidation)
3. Previously escaped, evaded sentence or jumped bail
4. Violation of Sec. 2 (fails to report to clerk of court periodically under his recognizance)
5. Recidivist, habitual delinquent previously convicted for an offense to which the law or
ordinance attaches an equal or greater penalty or for 2 or more offenses to which it
attaches a lighter penalty
6. Committed offense while on parole or under conditional pardon
7. Previously pardoned by municipal or city mayor for violation of ordinance for at least 2
times
a. Upon application with the court and due notice to the fiscal
1. Case is dismissed
1. Accused is acquitted
2. Accused is convicted and surrenders for execution of judgment
12. When bail cancelled or denied: after RTC imposes imprisonment exceeding 6 years,
but not more than 20 years, and:
à 30 days for bondsman to show cause why judgment should not be rendered against
him
c. Bondsman fails to satisfactorily explain to the court why accused did not appear
when first required to do so
à Sureties guarantee only appearance of the accused, not his conduct (US vs. Bonoan)
1. Within 30 days, produce the body or give reason for non-production AND
2. Explain satisfactorily the absence of the accused when first required to appear
15. Remedies
à For judge to set hearing for the determination of strength of evidence of guilt
17. Notes:
1. Posting bail waives the right to question any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
(Callanta vs. Villanueva). However, this does not result in waiver of the inadmissibility of
the articles seized incidentally to such illegal arrest.
2. Accused waived the right to question any irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary
investigation when he failed to do so before entering his plea (People vs. Dela Cerna)
3. Accused out on bail may be re-arrested if he attempts to depart from the Philippines
without prior court permission (warrantless arrest allowed).
à In an appeal from a conviction, the accused shall again be presumed innocent until
and unless his conviction is affirmed (Castillo vs. Felix)
à If an accused escapes, he waives this right and merits a trial in absentia; the
accused forfeits his rights to be notified of proceedings in the future and to adduce
evidence in his behalf (People vs. Salas)
g. To have compulsory process to secure witnesses and evidence in his behalf
à During trial, the right against self-incrimination takes the following form:
à No double jeopardy if the new fact which justified the new charge arose only after
arraignment and conviction (People vs. City Court)
à No double jeopardy where the trial was a sham since there was no competent court
(Galman vs. Sandiganbayan)
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with consent of the accused (Caes vs.
IAC)
à There is double jeopardy if a person is charged twice under different penal statutes
for the same acts (People vs. Relova)
c. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense without the consent of the fiscal and the offended
party
5. Remedies
1. Motion to quash
2. Motion to dismiss
à Both filed on the ground of violation of accused’s rights, thereby ousting the court of
jurisdiction
6. NOTES:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusations against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been duly notified and that his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
1. Procedure
1. Court informs accused of his right to counsel and asks him if he wants one
2. Court appoints counsel de oficio if accused has none
à If no such member of the available, any person who is a resident of the province, of
good repute for probity and ability to defend accused
c. Court gives counsel time to confer with accused at least an hour before
arraignment
à Period allowed for counsel de oficio to confer with accused must be substantially
complied with; if not, case may be remanded for re-arraignment (People vs. Gonzaga)
à People vs. Agbayani – the right for 2 days to prepare must be expressly demanded.
Only when so demanded does denial thereof constitute reversible error and ground for
new trial. Further, such right may be waived, expressly or impliedly.
à NOTE, HOWEVER, under SC Circular 38-98 (implementing “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”),
accused must be given at least 15 days to prepare for trial, which shall commence
within 30 days from receipt of Pre-Trial Order.
à Statement in the judgment that the accused was arraigned and pleaded is sufficient;
the manner of statement of such fact is immaterial (People vs. Cariaga)
à Court conducts searching inquiry to determine if accused was aware of the charges,
of his plea, and its consequences
à Court requires prosecution to present evidence to prove guilt of accused and
determine his degree of culpability, and accused may still establish presence of
mitigating circumstances in his favor
à Plea of guilty waives only defects which may be taken advantage of by motion to
quash or by plea in abatement; cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
3. Effects
b. Improvident plea of guilty may be changed to not guilty any time before judgment
is rendered
c. A plea of not guilty may not be changed to guilty, as doing so would only spare the
prosecution of presenting evidence and still result in the conviction of the accused.
4. Remedies
à Filed when the information is insufficient in form or is generally worded, that a Bill
of Particulars is necessary to clarify the acts for which the accused is being charged
à Filed when the accused seems mentally unsound or if there is a prejudicial question
in a pending civil case
1. Motion to quash – a hypothetical admission that even if all the facts alleged
were true, the accused still cannot be convicted due to other reasons
General Rule: Before entering plea; all grounds not raised deemed waived
Exception: The following grounds may be used in MTQ even after plea
1. No offense charged
2. Lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged
3. Extinction of the offense or of the penalty
4. Double jeopardy
3. Grounds
à For the info to charge a complex crime, it is not necessary that it be defined by law,
only that it alleges that one offense was necessary to commit the other (People vs.
Alagao)
1. No territorial jurisdiction
2. No jurisdiction over offense charged may be raised at any time; no waiver
considered even upon failure to move to quash on such ground
3. No jurisdiction over person of the accused
à The court gained jurisdiction over the person of the accused when he voluntarily
appeared for the pre-suspension hearing (Layosa vs. Rodriguez)
à No waiver
à No double jeopardy if first case was dismissed with the consent of the accused (Que
vs. Cosico), unless ground for dismissal is: (a) denial of right to speedy trial; or (b)
insufficiency of evidence.
à If the first case was dismissed due to a deficient information, then there was no
valid information and there could be no double jeopardy (Caniza vs. People)
à Cudia vs CA – it should be the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga, not the City
Prosecutor, who should prepare informations for offenses committed within Pampanga
but outside Angeles City. An information must be prepared and presented by the
prosecuting attorney or someone authorized by law. If not, the court does not acquire
jurisdiction. Although failure to file a motion to quash the information is a waiver of
all objections to it insofar as formal objections to pleadings are concerned, questions
relating to want of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
Moreover, since the complaint or information was insufficient because it was so
defective in form or substance that conviction upon it could not have been sustained,
its dismissal without the consent of the accused cannot be pleaded as prior jeopardy,
and will not be a bar to a second prosecution.
d. More than one offense was charged, EXCEPT where law prescribes single
punishment for various offenses
à No waiver
à For charge to be complete, it is necessary to state that it was exempted from any
amnesty existing at the time
NOTE: Court will consider no other grounds other than those raised, EXCEPT lack of
jurisdiction over offense charged.
5. Procedure
1. MTQ filed
2. If based on defect in info which can be cured, court shall order its amendment
3. Quashing the info shall NOT be a bar to subsequent prosecution (accused has not pleaded
yet), EXCEPT when the ground is:
1. Double jeopardy OR
2. Extinction of criminal liability
6. Remedies
à If there was really no basis for the info, then such could be proved in the trial
à Upon denial of a MTQ, the proper remedy is to go on trial and later to appeal, if
necessary; mandamus or certiorari will only be granted if there is not other plain,
simple and adequate remedy
7. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor deemed a waiver of such
grounds, except:
1. Plea bargaining – process whereby the accused and the prosecution in a criminal
case work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval.
It usually involves the defendant’s pleading guilty to a lesser offense or to only some of
the counts of a multi-count indictment in return for a lighter sentence than that for
the greater charge.
à Under “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, in all criminal cases cognizable by the MTC,
MCTC, MeTC, RTC and Sandiganbayan, pretrial is mandatory.
à Under SC Circular 38-98, implementing the “Speedy Trial Act of 1997”, an accused
may plea guilty to a lesser offense only if said offense is necessarily included in the
offense charged.
à Facts which both parties and respective counsels agree on as evidenced by their
signatures; these facts need not be proved by evidence in trial
3. Pre-trial order – binds the parties, limits the trial to matters not yet disposed of,
and controls the course of action during the trial
4. Procedure
1. To assail the admissibility of evidence which prove the elements of the offense charged
2. To assail the credibility of such evidence
3. To prove another version, possibly admitting certain evidence of the prosecution and
adding other evidence to cast reasonable doubt
à Even in summary procedure, the judge cannot base his decision simply on affidavits;
he must give the defendant the chance to cross-examine (Combate vs. San Jose)
2. Procedure
a. Parties notified of date of trial 2 days before trial date (R119, §1)
à Presentation
à Cross-examination
à Re-cross
à Offer
1. Sick or infirm
2. Has to leave the RP with indefinite date of returning
6. Requisites for postponement due to absence of a witness
à Discharge of accused, when not all the requisites were met, cannot be revoked as
long as he testified according to what was expected of him (People vs. Aninon)
8. Remedies
à Upon the court’s discretion, separate charges may be tried in one single case if the
offenses charged arise form the same facts or form part of a series of similar offenses
c. Motion for continuance – filed to postpone trial for just cause
à Evidence adduced in this said hearing automatically form part of trial; however, if
court denies motion for discharge, his sworn statement shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
à Discharge of the accused has the effect of acquittal, unless accused fails or refuses
to testify against his co-accused in accordance with his statement (which formed the
basis for his discharge)
à If the court finds the prosecution’s evidence insufficient, the case will be dismissed
1. If the demurrer was made with leave of court, defense gets to present evidence
2. If the demurrer was made without leave of court, defense is deemed to have waived the
right to present evidence and the case is submitted for judgment
à Filed after the case is submitted for judgment but before judgment is actually
rendered
à To allow either side to present additional evidence, if such could not be found
before
à The accused cannot move to reopen the case to allow him to adduce evidence in his
behalf when his failure to adduce them during the trial was his own fault (People vs.
Cruz)
1. Judgment – adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not guilty of the
offense charged, and the imposition of the proper penalty and civil liability provided by
law on the accused
2. General Rule: If the accused is found not guilty, he will be acquitted and the
acquittal immediately becomes final and executory. If the accused is found guilty,
penalty and civil liability will be imposed on him.
à Accused cannot be convicted for an offense graver than that charged (People vs.
Guevarra)
4. Contents
1. Civil liability for damages, unless acts alleged clearly did not exist
2. Basis of liability
5. Procedure
8. Remedies
a. Appeal
1. Error of law or irregularities have been made during trial which are prejudicial to the
substantial rights of the accused
ii. New evidence has been found which could not have been found before and which
could change the judgment
10. Notes:
1. Made by the court before judgment is rendered in the exercise of sound discretion
2. Does not require consent of accused
3. May be made at the instance of either party who can thereafter present additional
evidence
1. Only impeaching evidence is sought to be introduced as the court had already passed upon
issue of credibility
2. Only corroborative evidence is offered
3. Prisoner admits commission of crime with which accused is charged (facility with which
such confession can be obtained and fabricated)
4. Alleged new evidence is inherently improbable and could easily be concocted
5. Alleged new evidence consists of recantations of prosecution witness, due to unreliability
of such recantations, EXCEPT if no other evidence to sustain conviction aside from
recanted testimony
à Motion for recon is based on the grounds of errors of law in the judgment is court is
not asked to reopen the case for further proceedings, but to reconsider its findings or
conclusions of law and make them conformable to the law applicable to the case on
the judgment the court has to render anew.
à In New Trial, irregularities are expunged from the record and/or new evidence is
introduced. In modification of judgment, no new hearings or proceedings of any kind
or change in the record or evidence. A simple modification is made on the basis of
what is on the record.
à In reopening, no judgment has yet been rendered, although the hearing may have
already been closed
à Grounds are errors of law or fact in judgment, which require no further proceedings.
à Proceedings and evidence not affected by irregularities stand, and those affected
are set aside. Court may allow introduction of new evidence
à Evidence already taken shall stand; new evidence taken with the old
1. Procedure
b. Filed with the CA or SC, if original case was with RTC
i. With CA: notice of appeal with court, and with copy on adverse party
à CA may reverse, affirm, or modify judgment of RTC, or remand case for new trial or
re-trial, or dismiss the case
ii. With SC: notice of appeal where penalty imposed is life imprisonment, or lesser
penalty involving offenses committed on the same occasion, or arising out of same
occurrence where graver penalty of death is available but life imprisonment is
imposed; all other cases, by petition for review on certiorari
à Once notice of appeal is filed, cannot be validly withdrawn to give way for a Motion
for Recon or a Motion for New Trial, since the filing of the notice perfected the appeal,
and the trial court loses its power to modify or set aside the judgment. The only valid
withdrawal of an appeal is where the accused decides to serve his sentence.
1. Shall not affect those who did not appeal, EXCEPT if favorable and applicable to them
2. Civil appeal by offended party shall not affect criminal aspect of judgment
3. Execution of judgment on appellant will be stayed upon perfection of appeal
3. When appeal by prosecution from order of dismissal of criminal case will not result
in double jeopardy
1. Filed when the law under which the accused was convicted is repealed or declared
unconstitutional
2. When a later judgment is rendered acquitting others for similar circumstances
1. When penalty is lowered and convict has already served more than the maximum period of
the new penalty
à Habeas corpus is available when a person is imprisoned beyond the maximum penalty
imposed by law (Gumabon vs. Dir. of Prisons)
1. Search warrant – an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court
à Cannot be issued to look for evidence (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à For a warrant to be valid, it must meet the requirements set by law (Burgos vs.
Chief of Staff)
à Warrantless searches are illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à It is not the police action which is impermissible, but the procedure and
unreasonable character by which it is exercised (Guazon vs. de Villa)
à Court gains jurisdiction over items seized by a valid search warrant and returned to
it, and such is not an unconstitutional deprivation of property (Villanueva vs.
Querubin)
à Right against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived, but for the waiver to
be effective:
à No waiver against unreasonable search and seizure when one compromises the
criminal proceedings (Alvarez vs. CFI)
à There is no waiver of right when evidence of coercion is present (Roan vs. Gonzales)
à Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and the thing to be searched
for and seized is in the place to be searched
c. Issuing judge personally examined, in the form of searching questions, the
appellant and his witness and took down their written depositions
à Property which men may lawfully possess may not be the object of a search warrant
(Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
à Nature of goods may allow description to be general or not too technical (Alvarez vs.
CFI)
à Otherwise, cannot be said to have issued upon probable cause (Asian Surety vs.
Herrera)
g. Was not issued for more than 10 days prior to a search made pursuant thereto
(search warrant becomes void after 10 days)
4. When a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thing to be seized
5. Procedure
à Oath requires that the person taking it personally knows the facts of the case
(People vs. Sy Juco)
à Affidavits submitted must state that the premises is occupied by the person against
whom the warrant is issued, that the objects to be seized are fruits or means of
committing a crime, and that they belong to the same person, thus, not affecting third
persons (People vs. Sy Juco)
à Judge must ask probing questions, not just repeat facts in the affidavit (Roan vs.
Gonzales)
à Search may last for more than a day as long as it is part of the same search for the
same purpose and of the same place (Uy Khetin vs. Villareal)
f. Peace officer files return of search warrant and inventory, and surrenders items
seized to receiving court (not necessarily court which issued the warrant)
à Items seized illegally must remain in custodia legis pending resolution of the case
(Roan vs. Gonzales)
(3) Weapons and things which may be used as proof of offense charged (Nolasco vs.
Pano)
iv. May extend beyond arrestee to include premises and surrounding under his
immediate control
8. Person making the arrest may take from the arrestee
9. NOTES:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, papers, houses and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in the proceeding.